Information for "A Clinical Commissioning Group v FZ (2022) EWCOP 21"

Basic information

Display titleA Clinical Commissioning Group v FZ [2022] EWCOP 21
Default sort keyA Clinical Commissioning Group v FZ (2022) EWCOP 21
Page length (in bytes)1,492
Page ID14380
Page content languageen - English
Page content modelwikitext
Indexing by robotsAllowed
Number of redirects to this page0
Counted as a content pageYes
Page imageEssex newsletter 123.pdf

Page protection

EditAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
MoveAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
View the protection log for this page.

Edit history

Page creatorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of page creation21:22, 28 June 2022
Latest editorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of latest edit21:59, 14 March 2023
Total number of edits3
Total number of distinct authors1
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days)0
Recent number of distinct authors0

Page properties

Hidden categories (2)

This page is a member of 2 hidden categories:

Transcluded templates (13)

Templates used on this page:

SEO properties

Description

Content

Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements.
(1) The CCG's plan was for someone to befriend FZ over a number of visits, then for a vaccinator to attend and inject her swiftly before she was able to understand what was happening. No physical intervention and restraint was proposed and the court "would not entertain such an application were it to be made." (2) The court took the usual orthodox view as its starting point, by analogy with the High Court's approach to children: it is "very difficult to foresee a case in which a vaccination approved for use in children, including vaccinations against the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, would not be endorsed by the Court as being in the child's best interests absent a credible development in medical science or peer reviewed research evidence indicating significant concern for the efficacy and/or safety of the vaccine or a well evidenced medical contraindication specific to the subject child". (3) However, wider best interests considerations include how the vaccination would be administered. In this case, FZ would resist, and the plan would likely fail, at least on the first attempt, and result in trauma for her and her family: overall, it was not in her best interests.
Information from Extension:WikiSEO